I spent the 9th of July 2006, that is, the weekend of the World Soccer Final at Victor’s place in Germany, and although I remember nothing about the game, I shall never forget our small gathering and of course the wines. We had a handful of truly great ones, at least two of which potential legends.
On Saturday evening with dinner:
Château Latour à Pomerol 1990
Thanks to Victor. I had not had this in years, and only remember having had it from half bottles, some of which were better than others. Quite deeply coloured, no doubt a clean and pristine bottle. Shows some Pomerol softness and sweetness, perhaps medium complexity (or close), and very good integration of its oak, but cannot really be referred to as fruity or round. Not particularly resistant to oxidation, slightly rustic, especially in terms of its acid/tannin backbone, which also shows a (faint) metallic touch. A touch of volatile acidity surfaced with airing, which did not hurt matters at all, as it highlighted a soft (oxidative no doubt) Malaga sweetness. Very, very drinkable bottle indeed, I certainly found this more enjoyable than I had remembered, but it is still not better than about excellent quality (at best), and I doubt it has got upwards potential. Not quite up to the 1982, rather on a similar qualitative level as the 1995 (which I am still hoping may prove to be better than it seems so far). At a fair price, and if all bottles were this good, not bad at all, but the problem with Latour à Pomerol is its comparatively lofty reputation, to which really only legendary wines (from a past long gone) seem to have lived up to. Rating: ~88?
Joh. Jos. Prüm Riesling Auslese Gold Capsule #22 Wehlener Sonnenuhr 2001
Half bottle thanks to Victor. Medium-pale yellow-green. High dose of sulphur and almost a touch of residual yeast on the nose. A quite lemon-zesty Prüm, with nice spring flowers, soft blackcurrant superripeness top note only, and hardly any botrytis it seems. Excellent, though not extraordinarily intense minerality. Acidity is not particularly crisp for a 2001, but certainly high enough; nonetheless, this might be the reason why Victor was not quite as convinced with this as one might expect. About outstanding (only?). Rating: ~90?
Then the gathering on Sunday:
Fonseca Vintage Port 1966
Thanks to Dirk. Supposedly a Justerini and Brooks bottling. Faintly pruney ruby-black. A bit Cockburn-like with its sweet raisiny currants, grape peel and chocolate, nicely thick and viscous, tobacco leaf, cheesy herbs, nutmeg, rich finish. Increasingly precise and full-bodied with airing. As good a bottle of 1966 Fonseca as I have had, perhaps not the raciest, but impressively complete. Rating: 95/96
Bonneau du Martray Corton-Charlemagne 1992
Half bottle thanks to Victor. Direct import from the winery a couple of weeks earlier, showing exceptionally well, or else what I have tasted before was not quite as well stored. A nice combination of fat and finesse. Soft chalky minerality, thoroughly ripe lime fruit, soft herbs, very good length. Shows great harmony. Thoroughly and evenly ripe acidity. Rating: 92/93?
Armand Rousseau Chambertin 1993
Forgot to note whose contribution this was. Medium-plus ruby-black. Forest earth, aged beef, a hint of caper to cherry, raspberry, spicy, nicely peppery, with some dried laurel and iron. Fair enough fruit sweetness, a little morbidity, a little oxidative. Could definitely be more concentrated, too. Some oranginess as soon as the wine was allowed to warm up in the glass. And yet, this might still profit from more bottle age, hard to tell. Rating: 91+/-?
Domaine de la Romanée-Conti Romanée-St-Vivant 1993
Forgot to note whose contribution this was. Fresher, livelier, glossier ruby-black colour than that of the Rousseau Chambertin, minor watery rim. Undergrowth, petits fruits rouges, tannic, a touch of leafiness, nicely firm, with the fruit perhaps a fraction more evolved than the still fairly hard, but aromatic and flavourful tannic backbone. Intense, somewhat imploded herb notes. Integrating its component parts with airing even on a hot summer day, rather than falling apart. Remains a cellar candidate. (But note something strange happened here: this had oxidised badly by the following day, thus turned simplistically orangey. Maybe someone forgot the bottle outside in the sun for a while?) Rating: 94+?
René Rostaing Côte-Rôtie Côte Blonde 2003
I was told the grape material here stems from a site called La Garde, which is sandwiched between La Mouline and Chatillonne, from vines planted in 1934, 1970 and 1971. Deep purple, opaque at the center. Reductive meatiness, peachy-floral (in most vintages 3-4% Viognier is co-fermented with the Syrah), plus violet and lavender. Some toasty oak. Soft pepper and olive only. A well-concentrated wine, very polished, not showing much depth yet. More floral with airing, adding white jasmine and lily. Faintly powdery-dusty tannin, low acidity, but not at all freaky, the balance, as well as the early harmony, is rather impressive. Even a bit on the cool intellectual side for the vintage. Needed lots of airing to show a little (attractive!) herbaceousness, let alone the Côte-Rôtie-typical aromas and flavours of lard and bacon fat. Highly resistant to oxidation, a most convincing showing. I especially loved the purity of the wine. Not up to the 1999, but the 2003 is very close to the 1998 in quality, in fact, I would not be surprised if it (more than) caught up with the latter in time. Rating: 94+?
Jean-Louis Chave Hermitage 2003
Thanks to Victor. Bottle #08194. The opaque purple colour of Vintage Port. Complex, subtle and pure, perfumy floral essences, lavender and violet, a hugely sweet and ripe yet minerally nose, wholly without being over the top. Gorgeously deep and flavourful tannin. Partly dried yet still lively and racy small berries, blackberry, irony blood. Soft pepper and spice. High alcohol, no volatility whatsoever, not hot at all. Huge fruit density and sweetness, so deep, complex and finesseful. Pure, clean and racy on a level of its own. What a drug-like wine! Subtle chalk note on the persistent, full-bodied, long finish. Added some dark chocolate with airing and seemed yet longer. An interesting aspect of the experience was that there was very little discussion – there literally appeared little left to say. I have rarely tasted a wine this young whose potential for perfection was more obvious. I understand there is a Cuvée Cathelin in this vintage also – it is possible that wine is even more concentrated than this, and of course I would love to be given the opportunity to taste it, but seriously, I do not see how it could be any better. As hard as I looked, by the way, I could not find any freakiness at all. Whoever said the 2003 Northern Rhône wines taste as if from the New World? They do not. The plus in the score expresses no hesitation or uncertainty, it would merely be a pity to drink the tiny production of 2003 Chave up in its youth. How much I wish I owned a boatload of this wine... Rating: 99+/100
Chapoutier Ermitage Le Pavillon 2003
Thanks to Victor. Chapoutier’s Le Pavillon stems from a parcel of old vines in Les Bessards. From a yield of 15 hl/ha. 659 cases made. A fraction less deeply and densely coloured than the Chave, also virtually opaque purple. Less purely fruity, more raisiny, heavier Port-like violet, faint volatility, the tannin is a bit rougher, the acidity a little higher (I realise the use of a comparative form seems to imply the Chave has acidity – not sure it does), if not lively for a 2003. More peppery as well as bell-peppery fruit. More polished style and wine, even it the vanilla and coconut oak notes integrate extremely well. But more lactic, and spicier on the finish. A rather phenolic monster, hugely tannic, with a suggestion of pips tannin or a faintly greenish freshness, but I like the additional bite it gives the wine. Not quite the serene balance or early harmony of the Chave, but the 15.8% natural alcohol here integrate at least as well. Hugely long on the finish. I have always wondered what exactly it is that has kept me from being a Chapoutier fan – the fact that quantitatively, the best wines seem to have everything, plus that there seems absolutely nothing wrong with them so far has not done it for me. The somewhat typical youthful (one is tempted to ask, bio-dynamic?) cheesiness does not hurt. Extended airing lead to greater precision on the nose, as well as more iron and minerality showing. Very impressive complexity, a touch of marzipan, probably an effect of the combination of floral essence fruit and absorbed new oak. Almost as resistant to oxidation as the Rostaing Côte Blonde or even more so? Seemingly more harmonious, rounder, sweeter on the next day, then an almost Dal Forno-like dry and sleek yoghurt of Shiraz, with notes of rhubarb and Brussels sprout on the third day, when I served the remainder to Albino, who found it, otherwise typical Hermitage or not, as hard to digest as any “Hill of Grace, Three Rivers or Roennfeldt Road” (ironically his favourite three Shiraz bottlings from Australia, along with Grange from the past) – not because of the alcohol content, mind you, because of the tannin! Perplexing wines, these top Chapoutier Syrah bottlings, not necessarily the hot and dry vintage alone – I remember the 1995 baffled me to almost the same degree at a similarly early stage, and that wine was easier to judge than this one. Victor believes I am underrating this, and maybe I am. I would have served Chave and Pavillon in inverted order, after all, guessing the three Northern Rhône wines’ identity was, given the all too obvious differences in style, child’s play for once. Rating: 94-96+?
Henri Bonneau Châteauneuf-du-Pape Réserve des Célestins 1995
Full garnet-ruby-black with a touch of prune, could look livelier (as other bottles have). Muted, vegetal, oxidative Malaga sweetness, corked... Could anyone who can exert any influence or pressure on the man please tell him to use higher quality corks? Rating: N/R
Henri Bonneau Châteauneuf-du-Pape Réserve des Célestins 1998
(Whenever I taste, drink or write about the wines of Henri Bonneau, I realise I like them for different reasons than other people, well-known wine critics in particular. The combination of low acidity and high alcohol in a red wine, normally, is at the opposite end of what I like. These wines are made in an archaic style, super-concentrated, old-viney, terroir-expressive and idiosyncratic almost rather than individual, none of which shouts for an excuse. What I want to say is that I like them for the same reason I love wines such as (usually older, more true to style vintages of) Vega Sicilia Unico, Monfortino, Quintarelli and Soldera Riserva – wines whose depth is in part a function of their being (or, unfortunately in several instances, having been) true Riserva-style wines, a deepening of aromas and flavours thanks to prolonged aging in large, never new vats. A style, I will admit it, that sometimes reminds me, like all of us who get older and thus glorify the past, of a time when there were numerous such wines, although to be fair, they used to range in quality from great to abominable also, just as modern barrique-aged wines today.)
Thanks to Martin, whom Victor had apparently told our first bottle at the great Graz vertical was corky. The 1998 RdC sets a new record as it took an unprecedented four years to finish fermenting, versus the 1990's three. Norbert reports that vats had up to 16.7% natural alcohol prior to bottling. For me the most memorable tasting experience of the weekend, not because I liked it better than the potentially perfect 2003 Chave, but because the 1998 Célestins was so much more difficult to judge and took its time to grow on me. Plummy-pruney ruby-black colour, slightly watery red-orange at the rim. The broad, diffuse Amarone-like nose was a shock, not that it was hot (nor even alcoholic at all), but the wine smelled as if the assemblage had been made the week before, grumpy and not at all "together", although not without an underlying sense of harmony. Despite my final verdict, it seems safe to consider our sample at least half-closed. I usually love RdC on the nose and was so irritated it took me a minute or more to realise everyone at the table was praising the wine to heaven, while I was still wondering if it might be a touch oxidative. I finally took a sip. Wow! What a super-concentrated, complex, deep, full-bodied, rich and incredibly long wine (longer than that immortal 2003 Chave)! Incredibly well-integrated, albeit huge, mouth- and teeth-coating tannin that is finely grained, already (or still only?) hinting at a virtual abyss of finesse notes that simply need time to surface. Utterly free from dryness. No (surprise!) alcoholic heat. Turning back to the nose, the same faintly pruney Amarone someone apparently put into a blender before serving. On each next sip, a recurring impression of disbelief: deep, deep, deep macerated fruit of huge density, a faintly orangey meatiness, and a mouthfeel akin to olive oil rather than sugary viscosity (not raisiny like Amarone, although very like the most complex Amarone you could imagine). Combines the length of the 1989 (but not that wine's perfumey nose and harmony) with the power of the 1990 (perhaps with a less sharply defined structure). Note our sample of 1998 had been decanted for six hours before serving, that we sat outside at hot summer temperatures and yet, this was the first decanter to be emptied! Now what does that tell you? I could hardly believe what happened to the nose once one allowed small portions to warm up in the Riedels: the wine gained aromatic precision. At a snail's pace, so it did not get truly focused. But still, imagine: a close to 100% Grenache aged in old vats for seven years firms up (if in a spicy mulled wine kind of way) in the glass with airing and rising temperature! At this stage, the 1990 and especially 1989 remain my favourite RdCs (note I have never tasted the 1978), but I am reminded I have a tendency to underestimate Bonneau at release, simply because the style makes it difficult to refer to these wines as unevolved. However, that is exactly what they usually are. Hard to tell, but I will not be surprised if the 1998 surpasses the legendary twin titans in the long run, as it does not appear to be showing more than the tip of the iceberg (rather: the whole chunk as yet lacking shape). And if it only comes close, honestly, who cares? Archaic monster or not, who is going to make such Riserva-styled beauties once the grand old man retires? Opening bottles of the 1998 RdC before it reaches age ten, or rather, before the end of the decade, seems infanticide and cannot be recommended. By the way, NO, I will not accept bets as to whether it will be much readier then. Try a bottle of the (neither ready, but lighter, thus more focused at his stage) 1998 Marie Beurrier if you must. Should add that in hindsight, this was and is the wine that has given me the most food for thought this past year, a wine that sprang to mind daily for at least the following three months, if not to this day, a uniquely perplexing and fascinating bottle. Rating: 97+
How much fun it must be one day to have the greatest 1998 CdPs side by side, such as this next to Beaucastel’s Hommage à Jacques Perrin (one of the most perfect young wines I have ever tasted), Pégau’s Da Capo, Marcoux’s Vieilles Vignes, Cailloux’s Cuvée Centenaire etc. Had an interesting conversation with an avid fine wine collector recently, by the way, who asked me over a glass of Clos Ste-Hune what the three greatest bottles of my life were, and -luckily, as I would not know where to start – immediately proceded to anwer the question for himself. I was baffled to hear he would currently place the 1998 Célestins second on his all-time greats list - consider the amount of interpretive experience it takes to come to this conclusion!
Koehler-Ruprecht Riesling Beerenauslese #12 Kallstadter Saumagen 1994
Pfalz Riesling. Half bottle thanks to Sam. 11% alcohol. Somewhat orange golden yellow. House dust, even the passion-fruity acidity seems lightly brown-bready with botrytis character. Orangey quince, a touch of petrol, chalky minerals. Quite intense, apricoty, very long. More orange on the aftertaste. A positive surprise when I think of the rubbery TBA from the same vintage. Rating: 92+?
Sankt Antony Riesling Trockenbeerenauslese #28 Niersteiner Pettental 1992
A Rheinhessen half bottle, also thanks to Sam. Yet more orange to the golden colour here. Higher or more mouth-puckering acidity, yet breadier botrytis house dust, some tangerine and acacia honey, quite long. Not necessarily more concentrated than the 1994 Koehler-Ruprecht BA, but sweeter, and somewhat more viscous and dried-fruity. Quite long, with less subtlety on the aftertaste. Rating: ~90?
Château Climens Barsac 1986
Thanks to Dirk. An atypical showing at this stage of the wine’s development. Nice golden colour. Still gluey botrytis. Some vanilla and coconut oak. A touch phenolic and bitter, medicinal, perplexingly youthful. A bit straightforward, could be fatter, seemingly a bit light. Nice lemon and balm mint. Soft lemon lemon zest bitter note. Still a young wine in need of bottle age, slightly disappointing since less powerful than usual. May be in a late in-between phase now, given it still did not show any secondary aromas and flavours whatsoever. But then, it tasted as if (structurally) prematurely aged when Victor and I retasted it the following day. Given this showed so much less well than a great bottle two months earlier, this bottle may even have been slightly off. Rating: 91+
Château Yquem Sauternes 1986
Thanks to Sam. A fraction less full golden colour than that of the Climens. Elegant pineapple, nicely integrated little coconut top note that is rather pretty (as if trying to prove there is something to say in favour of high quality oak, not just wine...). Round and lively tangerine, lovely little bitter note, not weightier but nobler, more aristocratic so to speak, also more exotic, as well as longer and showing greater finesse and subtlety. A wine of impressive tenderness for a Sauternes. With airing greater overall integration and viscosity, with some bready botrytis floating on top. Significantly better than the Climens that day, of which the finest bottles I have had would have been much closer, though. Rating: 95+
Péter Kállai Tokaji Essencia Csontos Dülö 2000
100% Furmint with over 600 g/l residual sugar, unfiltered, which is why I bought a bottle (the label is very pretty, too, I will admit that ;^) Lightly amber orange colour with the faint milky murkiness of unfiltered Eszencia. Hugely thick and viscous, sticky, marmalady quince, pear juice concentrate and dried apricot. Finesse notes of tobacco, paprika powder, white chocolate. Tangerine-scented and a bit passion-fruity acidity. Even so, not the most complex or minerally-deep of Eszencias, as Albino immediately noted when I served him a glass a day or two later. But so tasty, immensely pleasurable in fact, and qualitatively in about the same league as the (once?) widely available Pajzos 1993 Esszencia, at a very fair price of less than a hundred dollars per half litre. But: one could tell (and see!) this holds some residual yeast, in other words, it would be risky to hold on to bottles for too long, plus it must be stored coolly. Rating: 94-?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.